Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/3/2004 1:59:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/5/2004 7:52:58 AM EST by cliffy109]
OK... I've settled on a TA40 but I can't decide on a reticle. This site has helped, but I want to ask a couple of questions to those of you with the crosshair and triangle reticles.

First of all, I'm pretty set on the 2X model of the ACOG becuase of its weight, size, FOV and eye relief. It matches my hunting and shooting style perfectly. I hike a lot when I hunt and targets can vary between a deer running at 25 yards to standing broadside at 300. I'm used to a scout scope and I keep both eyes open even at long ranges.

The question becomes about the reticle. I tend to like crosshairs because I find them easier to lock onto a target. My eye tends to prefer both a horizontal and verticle point of refrence. The compact ACOG reticle though looks pretty thick and I'm wondering if I coule even see a deer at 300 or even 200 yards.

The brings me to the triangle. Obviously, I could sight that in by using the tip as my aiming point for distance shooting. I worry though that on closer shots I'd just throw the whole trianle on the target and squeeze. I'd use it more as a dot than line up on the tip. That could end up throwing the shot over the back of the animal.

Let me know what y'all think. I'd especially like to hear from those with the crosshair.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 3:03:32 PM EST
I prefer the Amber dot, but each to their own. If in doubt, I do not think you could go wrong with the red triangle version.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 3:16:15 PM EST
I just got another Comp ACOG, its a TA47 with red cross hair. I already have a TA47 with a amber triangle. I dont think the crosshair is terribly thick, I was actually suprised it wasnt thicker. While I myself greatly preffer the triangle, based what you've described, I dont think you would be dissapointed with the crosshair reticle and may actually preffer it.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 3:16:23 PM EST
I use the TA50-4 crosshair x3 with the BAC and routinely make nice little shots with the crosshairs. The actually cross portion is very very small and in line with the sizes of my Nikon, Weaver, and Leupold scopes.

Link Posted: 5/3/2004 6:41:48 PM EST
I liked the crosshair. The BAC worked well and the crosshairs did not seem too thick. I eventually sold the scope in part because the weak magnification did not seem to produce increased accuracy versus irons. I often regret selling it because it was a very fine little scope. But don't expect to greatly increase your precision.
Link Posted: 5/3/2004 10:18:29 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 6:22:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/4/2004 6:23:26 AM EST by Forest]

Originally Posted By Troy:
I absolutely HATED the crosshair models. I found them to be WAY too thick, and I found it nearly impossible to use the optic in BAC mode well. ....The red triangle is, IMO, the only way to go, though I could get by with the red dot.

Ditto - but if you can't get red the amber works well enough

-Forest (I agree with Troy, but couldn't find a red so I setteled on the Amber Triangle).
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 7:06:46 AM EST
You should be able to use the whole tri/dot up close. This thing is going to sit @ x" overbore. Bullet will land inside of the triangle @ 80ish yrds or less & again a little after 100yrds. Depending what distance you zero for(200yrd) should work great.
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 9:17:40 AM EST
Does anybody know how big the triangle and the crosshair are? I seem to remember 12 MOA on the base of the triangle but I could be wrong there. How about the crosshair? How thick? I sent an e-mail to Trijicon, but I'll be shocked if I hear back from them. It ain't like they don't have anything else on there plate. LOL
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 10:08:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By cliffy109:
Does anybody know how big the triangle and the crosshair are? I seem to remember 12 MOA on the base of the triangle but I could be wrong there. How about the crosshair? How thick? I sent an e-mail to Trijicon, but I'll be shocked if I hear back from them. It ain't like they don't have anything else on there plate. LOL

Reticule size Depends on which model Compact ACOG you purchase. It varies depending on the lens size. For information on the modle you are interested check here: Trijicon Compact ACOG Information
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 7:52:17 AM EST
Here is the e-mail that I just got from Trijicon. I'm surprised they took the time. I'm also surprised at how small they are.

Dear Mr. Clifford,

Thank you for your interest in Trijicon products. The illuminated portion of
the crosshair reticle of the 2x20 Compact ACOG scope has a thickness of 0.45
MOA. Please contact me at the number below anytime Monday through Friday 9am to
5pm Eastern Standard Time if you have any questions or concerns.

Thank you again,

Carrie Lettieri
Customer Service
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 8:30:27 AM EST
I'm wondering if the triangle or dot, wether red or amber obscures part of the target, or can you see the part of the target through the dot/triangle? Maybe just a dumb question.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:33:18 AM EST
It obscures the target.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 10:24:15 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 10:28:05 AM EST
Thanks for the info. BTW no hijack intended.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 1:46:53 PM EST
Last year I was facing the same/similar dilema. A friend let me shoot his 3x with red crosshair. Then I was able to test the 2x amber triangle. I settled on the 47-2, 2x, amber triangle. If their was a complaint, it's when doing accuracy testing, I need to drap something over the light gathering filiment on top to decrease the brightness cause the amber really glows and for my eyes creates a fuzzy image which for accuracy is a no-no. I'd still chose it again!

Big Al
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 6:48:06 AM EST
Red triangle 3x ACOG here. Great for CQB and benchrest shooting. I've managed 4" 10 shot groups at 22Oyards on a windy day using xm193 ammo out of my Bushy 16" carbine firing prone. My brother did slightly better (the punk). The ACOG was zeroed at 50 yards as suggested by everyone on this board.

IMHO, this scope would be great for the kind of deer hunting in which you actually do some recon and find a well used path or field and lay in wait. You can get a fast shot off if needed and I daresay if you cover the top of the deers neck with the trangle you are going to hit his/her spinal cord and turn off his/her's switch very quickly. I wouldn't go for a heart/lung snap shot if possible. If you use a stand and a feeder (no sport if you ask me) I don't think the cost of the ACOG is justified. Any old scope would work.

BTW, I don't hunt anymore because I live in Florida (I grew up in Maine), there's too many damn snakes, red bugs (yuck) etc. in the woods for my tastes....

Link Posted: 5/7/2004 6:54:05 AM EST
Cliffy, when you get that, let's meet at the NRA one night so I can take a peek through it...if I ever hit the lotto, I'll buy one..but 'til then, I at least want to say I've had the chance to look through one.
Top Top